Tusind tak for denne fremragende dokumentar. Den burde indgå som obligatorisk emne i historieundervisningen herhjemme. Jeg har aldrig selv fået fortalt så godt og grundigt om tingene. Min oldefar kæmpede ved Dybbøl og - efter hvad jeg har set i denne dokumentar - overlevede mirakuløst med at blive såret af skud i sin højre hånd. Endnu en gang tak… 🇩🇰
By the way, English-speakers may be confused by the term, 'sconce' as used in the subtitles, Skanse would be more idiomatically translated as 'redoubt' or entrenchment.
Thank you for the comment. My first priority is to provide as accurate translations as possible, rather than excluding nuance or details to simplify the translation. I picked "sconce" as it seems to derive from the same word as the danish "skanse". Usually, I use the official Danish Defence dictionary to translate words, but this wasn't possible in a 19th century context. I'm not an expert in the warfare of this period, and especially not in what seems to be a quite complex terminology of fortifications. After reading your comment, I noticed that all of the descriptions of the battle in English also use "redoubt" rather than "sconce", so I will change the word in the subtitles.
@@danishdefencedocumentaries3996 'Sconce' was in fact used in English as a term for an entrenchment, but it fell out of use in the 18th or perhaps 19th Century, and most people will now only be acquainted with the word as meaning a light fitting (in fact a separate word of Romance rather than Germanic origin). I really liked the programme, especially the way in which the story of specific personal destinies was woven into the broader picture.
@@danishdefencedocumentaries3996 Good choice, "redoubt" is definitely the word that would be understood by native English speakers. "Sconce" does not make sense in this context, as it refers to a light fixture or basically something that would hold a torch on a wall. I enjoyed this piece very much, by the way, a bit of Danish-German war history I was not familiar with. Quite by coincidence, it also clarified why the Danish-German border is where it is today, I had often wondered how it came to be, but had never researched it. Great work!
@Christhorpe Junction It has survived in some place names, mostly (or exclusively?) from the Civil War, but is now an archaic term in that sense, and most people would not know what it meant.
@Christhorpe Junction Queens Sconce at Newark upon Trench - that's correct. I used to live near it on Millgate. But it's just a stone cycle on the ground today.
My class is learning about the slesvig wars right now. Our teacher showed us this video to give us some info, but i forgot everything about the video, so now i'm here to rewatch it. I'm writing notes this time to remember.
Thank you. Never forget where you come from. Use it to see through the propaganda presented nowadays. I wish you the best in life. Stay strong, but do not follow blindly.
The battle of Dybbøll in 1864, in the same year the siege of Persburg during the Civil War in the USA and later the battle of Sedan in 1870 during the franco-allemand war were foretasts of what threatened the world from 1914 on: The industrialised mass killing of men, from modern artillery far behind the front lines down to hand to hand combat with bajonetts and spades in the trenches. This unseen acts of inhumanity culminated in the battle of the Somme in 1916 where nearly 50.000 british soldiers were killed in a single day. But only very few people had foreseen this evolution of ever growing casualities in future wars, i. e. Bertha von Suttner wrote a book titled "Lay down arms".
The fighting parties of ww1 were very aware of what war could become like. The German schlieffen plan sought to quickly knock out the French partly for this reason. Problem is their strategies didn't work, and there weren't enough offensive break-through weapons (like tanks and submachineguns) in existence yet, so war of attrition it was!
The bloodiest day of Somme battle was indeed horrific, but “only” just under 20,000 british soldiers were killed. If you want to be profound and deep on a YT clip regarding war, at least get the facts straight. Siege trenches and breastworks are also hundreds of years old and, and though often bloody business when fought over, doesn’t really foreshadow WW1.
Excellent documentary. One might quibble a little about some of the translations ie "grenades" for "shells". The Danes by the way have done an excellent job restoring the Dybbøll Skansen, which are well worth a visit.
The issue is quite simply that the Danish term for shells is "Grenades" XD With the distinction being "Hand Grenades" if they are used by an infantry, and just simply "Grenades" for a shell. But yes the correct english translation is indeed Shells :P
Thanks for the documentary. I come from the duchie Holstein. Unfortunately, my history lessons at school were very bad; I had, among others, a history teacher who was proud when we got bad grades in everything. I can't remember that German-Danish history played a role at all. I've been to Dybbøl many times and it's good to follow up the history. I think it's even better that the German-Danish drawings are actually quite good. German subtitles would be nice, although the English ones were okay for me.
As a dane it annoys me that they don't mention, that it was also the wealthiest and highest educated part of the country which was lost, which was arguably more disastrous than the land area itself. Denmark became a very poor country afterwards. And there also came a very large focus on the capital, because it was agreed upon that if Denmark were to be attacked again, essentially all focus should just be on the capital. So beside becoming poor, what money there was, was increasingly funneled to the capital, away from the peasants of Jutland. It really was on every level a disastrous outcome.
I had relatives on both sides. Afterwards they emigrated to New York. Growing up my grandparents always stressed to me that the war was tragic for Denmark but that men fought hard on both sides.
@@And-ur6ol Som en dansker tæt på Dybbøl: As a Dane close to Dybbøl, what has been the outcome in the last 159 years (1864-2023)? We see dangerous politics. Denmark has just announced that they will let USA troops into the country and giving away Danish sovereignty at certain military bases. Furthermore, US soldiers and personnel cannot be put on trial in Denmark. It is a direct provocation to Russia as with the Scandinavian countries allowing US material and troops. We see another nation trying to become the sovereign nation in the world. We in Europe will be part of a proxy war against Russia and allies. We will be subject to terrorism now. Open your eyes to global politics and economics. Surely you can argue that it will bring stability to Europe. But the US descendants are from Europe and they will in the end protect their own interests. History will repeat itself. The countries and languages spoken are different. But it is the same madness, now with better technology. Wake up! I am not a nationalist nor patriot. I see what is happening around the world as it is. I wish you all the best. I cannot even say God help us, as I do not believe in Gods which are man-made.
Too many historians feel proud that they can quote Lord Palmerston‘s remark about going insane about that matter or forgetting all about it. That gives them the chance to ignore that essential part of local and European history. My colleagues even did not understand why I always incorporated it in my curriculum. When you try to understand about that you know about ethnic conflicts, about the difference between historical rights and democratic demands, about the only ways to settle conflicts. My classes were shocked when I said that Schleswig might have become some kind of Kosovo at the Baltic had not people wise enough to take a different course done so.
@@Oldsteamer2 "Schleswig might have become some kind of Kosovo at the Baltic had not people wise enough to take a different course done so." I thinkt that is a very fair assessment.
I was born in DK, my far was born in DK, farmor was born in DK, everybody that lived before them was born in DK. Although I was raised in the Netherlands myself, the Danes are brothers. Forever.
Very good documentary. I always enjoy the Kriegs Museum in Copenhagen when I go over to Denmark for Christmas. As a former Infantry Officer myself, I must admit my heart beat faster when you described the hand to hand fighting.
Hvis du er dansker, ønsker jeg dig alt godt fremover. Bist du Deutscher, dann wünsche ich dich das beste im Leben. If you are neither Dane nor German, I wish you the best in life.
@@jaric5119. I’m an American, but ancestry wise my Great, Great Grandfather was from the Palentate in Barbarian Germany and my Great, Great Grandmother a Native Dane. They lived in the Duchy of Slesswig, befor moving to Texas to fight for Texas Independence.
@@jaric5119 late, but I hope you had a Merry Christmas too! I intend to spend this Christmas in Copenhagen making sure the Christmas beer gets consumed!
This is a historical foot note that both German and Danish people suffered great losses while politicians in Copenhagen, Berlin and Vienna decided their fates on the battlefields in both Holstein and Schleswig. Yet they never take into account the post traumatic effects on families of those lost in battle or the economic hardships endured by surviving wives and children years and even decades later. They do not take in effect the scars of war such as destroyed villiages and towns or once fertile farming land reduced to a pock marked landscape littered with unexploded shells and ammunition of various sizes and types rendering the land useless. I hope and pray for the futures sake that German and Dane never ever have to go through this carnage and horror again. I pray for perpetual peace to reign rather than a mortal King or Kaiser. My family is no stranger to the loss of a family member in battle. My great Uncle Augustin Schwartz perished at the Battle of Tannenberg on August 28th, 1914 and his remains are still buried in Poland.
Politicians and rulers do not think of the consequences by their actions. Their family members are far away from harm. You write it so beautifully, no one remembers anything decades later except the suffering members of a family having lost a loved one. History repeats itself constantly. In one hundred years no one will remember your name nor mine. All our posessions will belong to someone else. We work hard to establish something to show, but for what? Gods do not exist either, man made stories. But that is the beauty of life. We are reborn every day when we wake up. And when we die new life begins somewhere else if not in our own family. But how many of us can get out of the hamster wheel and make their dreams come true? We are held in place by global politics and economics and supression by others people's thinking and ruling. I wish you the very best in life.
There were a couple different ones, but the infantry had 16.9mm (.67) stem rifles (Tapriffel) or 17.8mm (.70) Minié rifles (Minieriffel). One of the commonly mentioned ones was the Tapriffel M/1848, but the infantry had atleast 6 different rifles. Based on pictures from the Danish War Musuem, it could look like some additional calibers might have been used by cavalry, artillery etc. The 16.9mm stem rifles could obviously not use 17.8mm ammo, but the 17.8mm rifles could use 16.9mm ammo but with low precision because it wouldn't engage the rifling. I found the following overview of the Danish infantry weapons in 1864 from a weapons analysis of the war made in 1946. "1. The 16.9 mm M/1848 Tapriffel. This weapon had been brought in at the beginning of the Three Years' War and had won high favour during this war - which in and of itself was not so strange, since the stem system in 1848-50 was certainly the best muzzle loading rifle system. 2. The 16.9 mm M/1854 Suhler-Tapriffel, which had been taken from the Schleswig-Holstein rebel army and which in 1854-55 had been bored out to the same caliber as the M/1848 Tapriffel. 3. The 17.8 mm M/1828 Minieriffel. This weapon had started as the Danish smoothbore flintlock M/1828. By the 1840s it had been given a percussion lock and had been rifled from 1860. 4. The 17.8 mm Minieriffel of French model I. This weapon had started as the French smoothbore flintlock M/1822. From 1841 it had been given a percussion lock and in 1848 had been sold in large quantities to Denmark, where from 1849 it was mainly used in our excellent light battalions (1., 2., 10. and 12. Battalion). Rifled from 1861. 5. The 17.8 mm Minieriffel of French model II. This weapon had begun as the French smoothbore percussion M/1840, a model that had already been discarded in 1842 in favor of a better percussion rifle. Large quantities of the discarded French rifles M/1840 was sold abroad, such as to Italy and Denmark. The smoothbore M/1840 were rifled from 1861." I'm not sure whether the listed model numbers only refer to Danish designations or also the foreign ones when they mention rifles bought from other countries. Some of it also gets a little confusing because "gevær" just means a long firearm in general, which can either be smoothbore or rifled, whereas "riffel" strictly means a rifle, in case it sounds like it mentions smoothbore rifles... Today the military doesn't use "riffel" anymore but only "gevær", but I think the distinction was used historically when rifles were a relatively new weapon.
Sentiments of domestic nostalgia and familial bliss are best kept separate from the grave business of war: the soldier must be utterly dedicated to his work and revel in war, else all is lost - including freedom.
I do not agree. You go to war because you are forced or you think you can make a difference paying the cost of war with your life. You are mere a tool to wage war as a soldier. Do not think that they even know your name the ones sending you to war because of their beliefs and ego.
40:17 in the tv serie "1864", we can the the Prussian soldier wearing bags in their hands during the assault : what was the purpose ? I saw the same in a Japanese war movie during the assault on Port Arthur in 1904.
My Maternal Grandmothers ancestors Immigrated, from northern Holstein to Davenport, Iowa, around this time, now I know, why. THANKS BTW, have blonde hair and blue eyes, what are, the odds?
It also belongs to the history that Denmark was a very young democracy at that time, only 9 years old. Therefore politicians might not have proper understanding of diplomacy, and especially throwing Denmark into a war, we wasn’t prepared for.
Interesting doc, and well done Danes! At least, after this the Germans stayed in their own lands and never bothered any countries after this...right? Right?
Blödsinn! In erster Linie waren das Preußen und Österreicher und nicht "Deutsche"! Zweitens haben diese beiden Nationen keinen belästigt! Die Dänen haben gegen das Londoner Protokoll verstoßen und daraus resultierte dieser Krieg, Punkt! Stellt Euch bitte nicht als Opfer dar.
I am a native born German.1964. And there has never been any misunderstandings with our Danish friends and neighbors. But this war was part together with the German/Austrian and German/French wars to unite Germany. Pure politics. By the way, the „German Reich“ was pronounced in Versailles…
44:22 should the Sub not say "Schau said, that the decisive battle is well underway" instead of "Schau sees, that the decisive battle is well underway"?
For sure the Viet Minh in the Vietnam war against the French at Dien Bien Phu learned a lesson from the the Prussians at this battle about the value of progressive sap trenches towards the enemy.
"The Germans" didn't have borders at the time since there was no "Germany" and in this case, the Danish thought they could annex land they were merely administrating as per an agreement after a previous war. The fact that unlike the first time around, they failed to get international support this time, shows how bone-headed the move was.
@@ohauss sorry to say, but Denmark was not just administering Schleswig as part of the London agreement, Holstein yes, Schleswig no. Also, we did not have a choice about administering Holstein, as the London agreement was a deal between great powers to keep the balance in the baltic sea. We would like to get rid of Holstein. Schleswig has a long history with the kingdom of Denmark. The fact that Danevirke is in Schleswig showing that Danes have been in the areas from the age of Vikings. Also, many Danish kings have been Duke of Schleswig before getting the danish throne.
Well, in these Times, they didn't start the war. first, the Danish started it, then the Austrian, and then the French, and they win all that. In the end Denmark lost the super power title, the Austrian lost territories, and the French empire dies
@@Fkp.777it could easily have been though, had the WW2 allies not decided that each area should vote what country they wanted to be part of. They could have just given Denmark all of Sydslesvig (not that it would have been a good idea).
In ancient times they use to torture prisoners. I use to think nothing could ever justify treating prisoners that way. Then google started censoring my comments. Now I understand.
The danish did great love how they stod up to two Big countrys even tho they had more soldiers and better guns they was only 38.000 and they was 60.000 two big nation aganst one little not suprise they didint win the second war they had with Them.
@@trevorclausen2994 no we danes are christians we follow the one true god Jesus Christ not false pagan ones we abandoned that long time ago and we don't like it when foreigners say this for our dead loved ones.
Sorry,but My great Grandfather's parents fled from the Schleswig/Holstein war 1864 to New Zealand,we are Danish Decent,and maybe a majority of Danes are Christian, not every Dane follows your belief,you still have white supremacy like every where else.
For what it's worth, the Europeans refused to learn any lessons from the American Civil War, despite having had a great many military observers there. The deadliness of rifles, digging in deep to avoid shellfire. They always looked at the American experience as something exotic, as if the whole thing was an anomaly; from which not much could be learned, let alone affect battle doctrine. It was a strange sort of arrogance for which many paid for with their lives.
So what is your point? You do know that the founders of America came from Europe, right? America is a young nation. Much to learn yet. But yet America has grown to be the watchdog of the world. Trying to solve conflicts around the world while it may backfire at times. Global politics. Weapons are of great importance to America. The weapons industry dictates the agenda of the number of arms in the US, not the people running office, senate or house representatives. It is not up to the legal system to make America safe. Does freedom come from being able to bear arms and which advanced arms the military, air force or marine has? Do you know the expression the power of balance? I am not an extremist or patriot. Yet there are always nations trying to dictate or influence other nations. Nowadays it becomes increasingly harder to hide the truth due to mobile phones and drones. In war there are no winners. Only broken families and tragedies. It does not matter who has the better weaponry or tactics.
That comment is...weird, to say the least, because generals like Moltke and others observed the American Civil War closely, which was one of the reasons why he supported the establishment of a national railway network. Sadly, the US has largely abandoned theirs.
@@_jpg Yes. My comment might be weird if you only think logically and do not excape the box you are put in from what you learn in school, what you see in the media, what others tell you. War has never led to anything good. But it still amazes me, how we perceive the world as a whole. We are of the same race. Yet we wage war and follow people in power. Look beyond the influence of people of high status forcing their agenda on to billions of people on earth. Another weird comment from me along with the following. I have blood on my hands, I passively support war by paying taxes. I do not hold any arms at the frontlines. Yet I kill. Thoughts on this _jpg?
@@jaric5119 I think he made his point. Europe sent many observers to the American Civil War,yet failed to grasp that the event was the greatest seismic shift in military operations of the 19th century. It was the first time that the key inventions of industrial revolution. The telegraph,rail roads, factories,were mated with mass citizen armies.
What a conclusion? The France-Austria war of 1859 was divisive and short. The Prussian-Danish war of 1864 was divisive and short. The Prussian-France war of 1870 was divisive, with a slightly longer moping up face. One reason the American civil war took so long, was the large area of conflict combine with relatively small infrastructure. What made WW1 so devastating was that the governments could mobilize the entire nation-state's resources for the war effort, hence not run out of manpower and rescuers for several years, despite intensive battles.
Well.... a German from Schleswig-Holstein here: The Danish King HAD to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea: Danish nationalists demanded to annex both parts.... but he knew that this annexation would cause war against Prussia due to a breach of the London Protocol of 1852. He thought the other powers like the UK would step in again BUT he forgot this decision would be counted as an offensive act. If he had not done anything those same Danish nationalists would have removed the king and a civil war could have been the result. Denmark had been solely responsible for the Danish-German War of 1864. A lesson to be learnt if you are a fan of nationalism. The Danish had to learn it the hard way. PS: Today there are quite a few Danish people living here belonging to the Danish minority... and they proudly show their flag, the Dannebrog. On the other side in Danish Northern-Schleswig there are quite a few Germans belonging to the German minority BUT they mustn't show the Schleswig-Holstein flag NOR the German flag and will be prosecuted if they do so! Dear Danish nationalists of today.... I know you are there and you are strong in Denmark! This might be an idea for some change! Should we prosecute the Danish minority for raising up the Danish flag in Germany like you do with the Germans in Denmark? Can you give us any advice how to bully a minority more efficiently?
That's a one-sided way of looking at events... Bismarck had a clear advantage in firing up nationalism in the German states after the constitutional crisis of 1862. Denmark and Slesvig was just a pawn in the big game of unifying Germany - with or without Austria. Pretty simplified to claim Preussia simply punished Danish nationalism. I agree with the description of the Danish Kings dilemma though. As for the part with not being allowed to fly the German flag in Denmark without permission from the police. The law dates back from 1854 where common Danes was permitted to use the Danish flag - before that it was only the king. Only the Danish flag was permitted. It's not a special law passed to annoy Germans after the unification with North Slesvig in 1920 😉
I am unsure whether the German and Danish narratives are different, but in the Danish narrative, the Danish Nationalists did not want to encorporate both duchies into the Kingdom of Denmark. The Danish narrative is basically, that the German Nationalists wanted to unite Schleswig and Holstein and have them become part of the German Confederation. Remember that Holstein and Lauenburg were already part of the German Confederation. The Danish Nationalists wanted to split the duchies and make Schleswig part of the Kingdom of Denmark, some even wanting to split Schleswig close to the modern border, and cut ties with Holstein, since they feared Holstein would use its German influence to encorporated Schleswig, and potentially the Kingdom of Denmark, into the German Confederation. I would also argue, that Denmark did not annex the duchies. Parts of the Danish Army were already garrisoned in the duchies, since the Danish king was also the duke of them. When the German Confederation interveened in Holstein and Lauenburg, the Danish troops were withdrawn to Schleswig. Austria and Prussia sought a war, as described in Bismarck's memoirs, to show the power of their armies, when they moved into Schleswig. They were not supported by the rest of the German Confederation who considered the war illegal, and German Confederation troops in Holstein were even prepared to fight back the Austro-Prussian troops, but were told to stand down by the confederal government. Also note that Schleswig-Holstein was later annexed by Prussia and not simply liberated. The Prussians promised a plebiscite about the border in Schleswig, but never actually held one. When Denmark was offered back Schleswig following the First World War, the Danes held the plebiscite that determined the modern border. In the meantime, many Danes had left their old family farms due to Prussian oppression, and the Prussian state encouraged Germans to move to Schleswig, which pushed the border north. You suggest that the war was caused by Danish Nationalism, but why did Prussia and Austria interveen if not for German Nationalism? The whole wish to unite Schleswig and Holstein and make them part of the German Confederation was in itself caused by German Nationalism. While Holstein was a more contested territory, Schleswig had been Danish for a thousand years, but had seen increased immigration and influence by Germans. This would indicate that the Danes were not suppressing German culture, until after their rebellion in the First Schleswig War. Likewise, the Germans suppressed Danish culture when they came in charge. In regards to the later Danish attitude towards Germans, also consider that a third of the Danish territory was lost, as well as Danes being forced into German service in the later wars, and Denmark being occupied by Germany. On the other hand, the Germans got everything they wanted, so why would they be bitter?
@@danishdefencedocumentaries3996 Regardless of this being a prime opportunity for Prussia, it was the Danish who broke the London Protocol, which is also illustrated by the UK refusing to intervene this time around. That Bismarck happily said "Thank you" is true, but it was the Danish who provided him the opportunity for war on a silver plate.
Because they were not “their” territories. It was - as explained in the beginning - mainly Germans living there. Claiming them would have meant more trouble in the foreseeable future. Rather have lasting peace than a piece of land to fight about.
Because our government refused to. But I'm wondering if we actually have such thing like a "reclaim" chance. I mean it would be great if our ancient danish cities of Flensborg, Egernførde or Rendsborg would come home🇩🇰
It's very possible. I was only able to trace the ancestry of the Schau brothers to their father, Hans Schau, who was born in Denmark. Several of the mentioned officers came from immigrant families. General Christian de Meza's grand father was a Sephardic Jew who had emmigrated from Portugal. General Georg Gerlach's father was born in Marburg, Major Glode du Plat's father was born in Bremen, and Captain Carl Galster's father was born in Erlangen.
That was a very common practice back then in the 1800's, when last names became mandatory for all citiziens in Denmark, was to take a german sounding last name, as it was seen as "higher" class. It didn't require german heritage to take a last name like Schau, Wass, Schmidt etc. Many peasants saw it as a way to climb the social ladder. The vast majority of pure bred danish heritage.
@@Legio1ItalicaSpoilers: The land area belonging to the kingdom of Prussia now mostly consists of apopulation with Poles, with a minority of people consisting of German, Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian background.
More died in a single small relatively unknown US Civil War battles than all the casualty in this war between two countries. I always wonder how the US would fare against the Europeans if there was a war back then. With General Lee and General Grant leading the battle, it would have been very interesting. There was a lot more strategy and use of climate and terrain to win battles in the US Civil War. Even though the Prussians won convincingly against the small Danish forces, I bet the combined US army would wipe out the entire Prussian empire. It was pure stupidity to fortify an area that is constantly bombarded and you can't attack back. They should have pulled back or change the plans. Lee's motto was to move, hit and run. You only stay entrenched if you have a superior defense and natural terrain that prevents the enemy from bombarding you without taking casualties back. Lee would have forced the enemy to move further north to stretch their supplies lines and find a vulnerability to flank them. Even if the Prussians had superior guns, the terrain and weather gave them an advantage. The Russians also used the cold winter weather to hold the Germans back in WWII. Weather is critical in any battle strategy. However, those cannons would be harder to move quickly and that limits their usability. Grant was a bully and knew how to use psychological warfare and superior strength. Together, they would have been a vicious duo. The Overland Campaign was a classic series of battle that used strategy. Even a strategic retreat is part of the entire battle plan if you are outnumbered and outgunned. Move the field of battle to a new location where you have an advantage. They were literally playing a chess match in those battles. The Vicksburg campaign was really the key to winning against Lee during the Civil War. It cut out the supplies to the Confederates from Texas and slowly eroded their supply lines. Without supply lines for food, recruits and so on, its only a matter of time the enemy gets weakened. The battle of Vicksburg also cut out the Confederate's ability to use the railroad system to transport the goods and it slowed down their ability to fight. Even though the battle of Gettysburg was important, the Vicksburg victory had a greater affect on the entire battle. I think the Danish could have held off the Prussians longer if they had better leaders with more experience with battle strategies. There was a lot to learn from the US Civil War battles that could have turned the tides of this war. If the Danish had better intelligence on the movement of the enemy, they could have fought back more successfully. They got into the normal routine and didn't realize that the Prussians were ready to attack. If they set up intelligence lines along the way, they could have early warning of 10,000 troops being moved. You can't move that many people without being detected if you had intelligence sources.
There was a reason why Dybbøl was chosen, it was a keypoint in north schleswig, it held the entrance to Jutland peninsula and the sea lanes to funen and the flensborg fjord. The Germans could not advance through the marches of Tønder and southern jutland. The Danes had very good battlefield commanders, but sadly the General staff was replaced constantly and was not stabil and strong. On top of that the germans used bolt action riffels, Denmark had none, the Germans also had very good haubitzers. The Danish soldiers held nonetheless untill the Austrians arrived., The English forsoke the Danes and never helped. The Danish Navy crushed the germans. It was a great lose that is still apart of Danish national psyche today.
@@ulrichkristensen4087 Although Dybbol was a strategic key point, the fact that the soldiers were exposed to fire and yet unable to retaliate means their tactics were flawed. You don't sit there and just let the other side bombard you without moving or find another way to defend yourself. In the case of the Pacific war, the Japanese were surrounded in the islands, and yet they were able to dig tunnels. They were constantly bombarded until every blade of grass was gone, but they were protected by the tunnels. When the Americans attacked, they came out of the caves and fought hard. In the battle of Iwo Jima, the general Kuribasyashi realized the beach was full of black sand. As soon as you dig a defense in the sand, it would collapse. Instead of forcing the soldiers to continue digging, he changed his tactic to build defenses higher. Now the black sands became a death trap for the Americans who landed on the beach. They were not able to move forward quickly in the sand and was hit with cross fire. The basically ripped the American landing forces apart as soon as they hit the beaches. That is one stone cold hearted person. Basically, they adapted to the situation instead of blindly going forward with a failing strategy. In other words, you adjust your tactic to the situation. You either move, find a way to defend yourself or figure out a way to make a counter attack. When the enemy is fast, you adjust to it. If the enemy is slow, you take advantage of it. I'm sure it would not be easy to move the canons, but if the soldiers were allowed to probe the enemy's perimeter defenses, they would have a much better chance of winning. They had no idea a large force of enemy was even at their doors on the day of the battle. The absolute lack of information is not excusable. The Danes know the landscape better and there are lots of places where they can set up recon. Instead, the leaders allowed the solders to stay in place and get shelled until their moral is low. You will never win any battle that way. Its obvious the leadership was inexperienced with true war and their lack of experience resulted in many unnecessary deaths and defeat. America lost in Vietnam not because the NVA had superior weapons. We lost because they were able to adapt. They disappear into the jungles. They dig tunnels and pop out behind their lines and wreck havoc. The NVA can't afford modern weapons, so they make bamboo punji sticks with feces on it to cause damage and infection. Their bridges get blown up by airplanes, so they build bridges under water. Basically you fight a war where you do whatever it takes to win. There are no gentleman's rules where you stand up and let your solders get destroyed wave after wave. Even in the Civil war, there was a big use of natural and defensive wood structures to fight behind. The battle of Dybbol was in 1864 and the US Civil war was from 1861-1865. Both these battles occurred in the same time. There was ample battles and strategies used in the civil war that anyone who is a military strategist would be able to learn from. However, its completely obvious the leaders in the Dybbol battle had not studied them. As a result, they lost and lost badly. Dybbol represents tragedy to the Danes, but it provides an invaluable lesson on war strategies. Every time you see that statue the Prussians erected for the battle, its a reminder what failure in leadship results in. Its a classic history lesson on adapting during battle and to do whatever it takes regardless of the enemy's superior strength. There are many principles in war which resulted in victory even when under overwhelming firepower from the enemy. One of the most powerful concept is the concentration of power. Divide your enemy up and when you attack, in any battle, you have a superior concentration of number. You don't eat an elephant with one bite. You take small bites until the whole elephant is gone. The concentration of force concept was used by Napoleon and the Confederates to decimate the enemies. Even Americans still make the same damn stupid mistakes in the modern time due to bad leadership. They should have never established Outpost COP Keating in Afghanistan. Basically, its a similar situation as Dybbol. The solders were hunkered down in this outpost that was exposed on all side and the Afghan rebels can shoot at them from the tall mountains all around the outpost. It was not defendable and they took on a lot of fire. Eventually, the output was runned over by the enemy. Its another example of what happens when people don't learn mistakes from the past. A true test is if a General does not feel safe being in the camp, they shouldn't force soldiers to do it. A lot of times, its policies from the top while the general is safe 1000 miles away in a warm and safe military base. That is how you lose wars.
I think you`re overrating americans generals and "tactics" used in the ACW. Let me remind you of the glorious moments such as Malvern Hill, Pickett`s charge, Cold Harbour, the Crater etc. Sure the dansih could have learned a lot from them. And Lee in Europe? Please, that old man didn`t win a single victory outside his own backyard. Also at this point in history the prussian army has far superior weapons than the americans. They use early types of bolt-action rilfes and their cannons outrange the americans by far. The american army is much more equipped like the danish. The Casualty rate (by numbers alone) doesn`t dictate how good strategy and tactics are used, if so the napoleonic wars outclass the ACW many times. Your arguments are such overrated. If the american generals were so superior, they would have leared from their own mistakes, but it took them around 4 years to figure out that classic napoleonic warfare was outdated. I am not saying Lee wasn`t a good general, but he is probably one of the most overrated of all times. Just look at the facts I mentioned. In mind mind a great general doesn`t make the same mistake twice. Lee should have learned from Malvern Hill. Grant on the other hand is more tricky to rate. He used his superior numbers and weapons, and yes he won some great strategical victories as well, but put up against even odds (or someone with better weaponry such as the prussians) I think he would have had a difficult time keeping his memory as a mastermind general.
@@Thebluefox815 I think you underrate the American Generals during some of those battles. Its an absolute joke that you said that Lee "didn't win a single victory outside his backyard". He beat the union army back in Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. In the Second Battle of Bull Run (Manassas), he decisively beat the Union force. Manassas was only 30 miles from Washington DC. In the Battle of Antietam, Longstreet under the command of Lee was able to defeat an army twice its size. He fought countless battles with a far weaker force and was able to push the Union army around. What really made it worse for him was the loss in the battle of Vicksburg. That battle basically cut off the supplies from Texas to keep the army fed. Over time, the loss of that supply line was what weakened the Confederate's ability to win a long battle of attrition. Lee was a great general, but he was human. If he didn't make several tactical mistakes in the Battle of Gettysburg, he would have won that battle in the second day. The union army would have retreated. On the first day, he was attacking Gettysburg from the north and west and was able to overtake the city. On the second day, he could have overtaken Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill. In fact, they almost overran the Union army's supply lines near the Baltimore Pike. If they have overtaken those supply lines, the Union army would have to retreat. Unfortunately, that lead to the battle of Round Top and Little round top which stopped their progress. The last mistake was to try to take Cemetery Ridge by pushing through the Seminary Ridge. Had he paused and re-think the strategy, he may have a chance to win. However, he was human and made a critical mistake in the attack on open fields and that resulted in the loss in the Battle of Gettysburg. Grant is a different animal. He pushed on regardless of losses and that was one of the advantages he had over his predecessors. The previous union army generals became timid and was more likely to overestimate the Confederate forces. They were afraid of Lincoln and losing battles. Grant had balls of steel, but he is nowhere as good as Lee in terms of using tactics. He was a bulldog and pounded his way through some of the battles. Grant also made many mistakes, but he had the advantage where he can get more forces and play a long game of attrition with a larger and well supplied force. Lee had a disadvantage in many of the battles. However, he was good at using speed and coverage to his advantage. He also used rails to transport troops which was something not done early in the war. The most interesting battles were along the Overland Campaign which lead to several battles such as the battle of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania Court House. That series of battles was one of the greatest use of tactics which even included the crossing of the James River using pontoon boats. The Prussian Army may have more superior weapons, but they did not have a decisive advantage. Prussians had the Dryse Needle guns. They had an advantage of a bolt action and faster reloading. However, Americans had the Henry M1860 repeating rifles. Although there were less of them as compared to the Dryse guns, the Henry repeating rifles were far superior in terms of the firepower. It had a .44 rimfire cartridge and was better designed. The Dryse needle guns had a tendency to misfire when the needle is dirty and a new needle was required after every 12 shots. The Chassepot was a better weapon that was used in later battles after Dybol. In my opinion, the Prussians had a technological advantage, but it was not such a great advantage that it would result in a victory in every battle during that time. The strategy and tactics used is a lot more critical than just the weapons available. Again, we will never know what would have happened if the Americans were part of the fighting in Dybol. However, they had an advantage in being through multiple battles. The strategies and thinking involved in a battle is a lot more important than superior weapons. If you had group of well trained soldiers with good leadership, you can win a lot of battles and skirmishes. On the other hand, in the Danish side, you had demoralized soldiers and bad leadership. Its a combination that would lose many battles.
Where is the Prussian perspective or the perspective of the german states? of the german federation?? Is this a fair reconstruction of history? I don't believe it!
Iike Defferleffer said this is a footnote in German history, but for Danish history and Denmark as a whole, this war change Denmark on so many fronts, ever have an influence on nations geography
Well, even in a documentary, you could give two sides. Still, the war was more than a footnote even for Prussia/Germany, but certainly overshadowed by the two world wars. It was the first major "modern" war fought by Prussia and Austria at the time. France, GBritain and Russia had fought one on the Cirmea. I don't know why the Danish comment is so whiny about Denmark becoming a 'small nation'. Sure, they lost the rang they had in the middle ages and after, but they did recuperate some of the territory. As for Prussia and Bismarck, unfortunately, it showed they'd grab just a but more than they should have (as with Elsass-Lothringen after the Franco-Prussian war). I'm not sure Bismarck wanted the war so much, it was still a gamble. However, once the conditions were there, he made sure Prussia would win resoundingly. As for the comparison with the ACW - US generals would probably have messed up and lost far more troops. Only later, the US would start to let others do the dirty work and minimize casualties.
Respect Danish From Brazil.🇩🇰🇩🇰🇩🇰..And Excellent Documentary 👏.
Muito obrigado :-)
Tusind tak for denne fremragende dokumentar. Den burde indgå som obligatorisk emne i historieundervisningen herhjemme. Jeg har aldrig selv fået fortalt så godt og grundigt om tingene. Min oldefar kæmpede ved Dybbøl og - efter hvad jeg har set i denne dokumentar - overlevede mirakuløst med at blive såret af skud i sin højre hånd. Endnu en gang tak… 🇩🇰
What a great documentary about something that rarely appears in the history books apart from footnotes.
By the way, English-speakers may be confused by the term, 'sconce' as used in the subtitles, Skanse would be more idiomatically translated as 'redoubt' or entrenchment.
Thank you for the comment. My first priority is to provide as accurate translations as possible, rather than excluding nuance or details to simplify the translation. I picked "sconce" as it seems to derive from the same word as the danish "skanse". Usually, I use the official Danish Defence dictionary to translate words, but this wasn't possible in a 19th century context. I'm not an expert in the warfare of this period, and especially not in what seems to be a quite complex terminology of fortifications. After reading your comment, I noticed that all of the descriptions of the battle in English also use "redoubt" rather than "sconce", so I will change the word in the subtitles.
@@danishdefencedocumentaries3996 'Sconce' was in fact used in English as a term for an entrenchment, but it fell out of use in the 18th or perhaps 19th Century, and most people will now only be acquainted with the word as meaning a light fitting (in fact a separate word of Romance rather than Germanic origin). I really liked the programme, especially the way in which the story of specific personal destinies was woven into the broader picture.
@@danishdefencedocumentaries3996 Good choice, "redoubt" is definitely the word that would be understood by native English speakers. "Sconce" does not make sense in this context, as it refers to a light fixture or basically something that would hold a torch on a wall.
I enjoyed this piece very much, by the way, a bit of Danish-German war history I was not familiar with. Quite by coincidence, it also clarified why the Danish-German border is where it is today, I had often wondered how it came to be, but had never researched it.
Great work!
@Christhorpe Junction It has survived in some place names, mostly (or exclusively?) from the Civil War, but is now an archaic term in that sense, and most people would not know what it meant.
@Christhorpe Junction Queens Sconce at Newark upon Trench - that's correct. I used to live near it on Millgate. But it's just a stone cycle on the ground today.
My class is learning about the slesvig wars right now. Our teacher showed us this video to give us some info, but i forgot everything about the video, so now i'm here to rewatch it. I'm writing notes this time to remember.
Thank you. Never forget where you come from. Use it to see through the propaganda presented nowadays. I wish you the best in life. Stay strong, but do not follow blindly.
The battle of Dybbøll in 1864, in the same year the siege of Persburg during the Civil War in the USA and later the battle of Sedan in 1870 during the franco-allemand war were foretasts of what threatened the world from 1914 on: The industrialised mass killing of men, from modern artillery far behind the front lines down to hand to hand combat with bajonetts and spades in the trenches. This unseen acts of inhumanity culminated in the battle of the Somme in 1916 where nearly 50.000 british soldiers were killed in a single day. But only very few people had foreseen this evolution of ever growing casualities in future wars, i. e. Bertha von Suttner wrote a book titled "Lay down arms".
The fighting parties of ww1 were very aware of what war could become like. The German schlieffen plan sought to quickly knock out the French partly for this reason. Problem is their strategies didn't work, and there weren't enough offensive break-through weapons (like tanks and submachineguns) in existence yet, so war of attrition it was!
The bloodiest day of Somme battle was indeed horrific, but “only” just under 20,000 british soldiers were killed. If you want to be profound and deep on a YT clip regarding war, at least get the facts straight.
Siege trenches and breastworks are also hundreds of years old and, and though often bloody business when fought over, doesn’t really foreshadow WW1.
Shut up American, this isn't about you.
Petersburg
Don't forget Verdun
Excellent documentary. One might quibble a little about some of the translations ie "grenades" for "shells". The Danes by the way have done an excellent job restoring the Dybbøll Skansen, which are well worth a visit.
Thank you. The Danish Defence dictionary also confirms your comment, so I've changed "grenades" to "shells".
The issue is quite simply that the Danish term for shells is "Grenades" XD With the distinction being "Hand Grenades" if they are used by an infantry, and just simply "Grenades" for a shell. But yes the correct english translation is indeed Shells :P
Thanks for the documentary. I come from the duchie Holstein. Unfortunately, my history lessons at school were very bad; I had, among others, a history teacher who was proud when we got bad grades in everything. I can't remember that German-Danish history played a role at all. I've been to Dybbøl many times and it's good to follow up the history. I think it's even better that the German-Danish drawings are actually quite good. German subtitles would be nice, although the English ones were okay for me.
As a dane it annoys me that they don't mention, that it was also the wealthiest and highest educated part of the country which was lost, which was arguably more disastrous than the land area itself. Denmark became a very poor country afterwards.
And there also came a very large focus on the capital, because it was agreed upon that if Denmark were to be attacked again, essentially all focus should just be on the capital. So beside becoming poor, what money there was, was increasingly funneled to the capital, away from the peasants of Jutland.
It really was on every level a disastrous outcome.
I had relatives on both sides. Afterwards they emigrated to New York. Growing up my grandparents always stressed to me that the war was tragic for Denmark but that men fought hard on both sides.
@@And-ur6ol Som en dansker tæt på Dybbøl: As a Dane close to Dybbøl, what has been the outcome in the last 159 years (1864-2023)? We see dangerous politics. Denmark has just announced that they will let USA troops into the country and giving away Danish sovereignty at certain military bases. Furthermore, US soldiers and personnel cannot be put on trial in Denmark. It is a direct provocation to Russia as with the Scandinavian countries allowing US material and troops. We see another nation trying to become the sovereign nation in the world. We in Europe will be part of a proxy war against Russia and allies. We will be subject to terrorism now. Open your eyes to global politics and economics. Surely you can argue that it will bring stability to Europe. But the US descendants are from Europe and they will in the end protect their own interests. History will repeat itself. The countries and languages spoken are different. But it is the same madness, now with better technology. Wake up! I am not a nationalist nor patriot. I see what is happening around the world as it is. I wish you all the best. I cannot even say God help us, as I do not believe in Gods which are man-made.
Too many historians feel proud that they can quote Lord Palmerston‘s remark about going insane about that matter or forgetting all about it. That gives them the chance to ignore that essential part of local and European history. My colleagues even did not understand why I always incorporated it in my curriculum. When you try to understand about that you know about ethnic conflicts, about the difference between historical rights and democratic demands, about the only ways to settle conflicts. My classes were shocked when I said that Schleswig might have become some kind of Kosovo at the Baltic had not people wise enough to take a different course done so.
@@Oldsteamer2 "Schleswig might have become some kind of Kosovo at the Baltic had not people wise enough to take a different course done so."
I thinkt that is a very fair assessment.
Excellent documentary, both informative and bleak and moving.
Ich habe die dänische Serie 1864 gesehen, die Schlachtszenen sind unglaublich grausam und realistisch dargestellt. Was für ein brutaler Krieg .
This should have been the basis for the 1864 tv series
Godt program / video. 🇩🇰👍. Tak for den 👍🥸😀🫡😀
I was born in DK, my far was born in DK, farmor was born in DK, everybody that lived before them was born in DK. Although I was raised in the Netherlands myself, the Danes are brothers. Forever.
why
Very good documentary. I always enjoy the Kriegs Museum in Copenhagen when I go over to Denmark for Christmas. As a former Infantry Officer myself, I must admit my heart beat faster when you described the hand to hand fighting.
Hvis du er dansker, ønsker jeg dig alt godt fremover. Bist du Deutscher, dann wünsche ich dich das beste im Leben. If you are neither Dane nor German, I wish you the best in life.
@@jaric5119. I’m an American, but ancestry wise my Great, Great Grandfather was from the Palentate in Barbarian Germany and my Great, Great Grandmother a Native Dane. They lived in the Duchy of Slesswig, befor moving to Texas to fight for Texas Independence.
@@danditto6145 Merry Christmas
@@jaric5119 late, but I hope you had a Merry Christmas too! I intend to spend this Christmas in Copenhagen making sure the Christmas beer gets consumed!
I watched this after having a great weekend at the 1864-days in Dybbøl Banke.
This is a historical foot note that both German and Danish people suffered great losses while politicians in Copenhagen, Berlin and Vienna decided their fates on the battlefields in both Holstein and Schleswig. Yet they never take into account the post traumatic effects on families of those lost in battle or the economic hardships endured by surviving wives and children years and even decades later. They do not take in effect the scars of war such as destroyed villiages and towns or once fertile farming land reduced to a pock marked landscape littered with unexploded shells and ammunition of various sizes and types rendering the land useless. I hope and pray for the futures sake that German and Dane never ever have to go through this carnage and horror again. I pray for perpetual peace to reign rather than a mortal King or Kaiser. My family is no stranger to the loss of a family member in battle. My great Uncle Augustin Schwartz perished at the Battle of Tannenberg on August 28th, 1914 and his remains are still buried in Poland.
Politicians and rulers do not think of the consequences by their actions. Their family members are far away from harm. You write it so beautifully, no one remembers anything decades later except the suffering members of a family having lost a loved one. History repeats itself constantly. In one hundred years no one will remember your name nor mine. All our posessions will belong to someone else. We work hard to establish something to show, but for what? Gods do not exist either, man made stories. But that is the beauty of life. We are reborn every day when we wake up. And when we die new life begins somewhere else if not in our own family. But how many of us can get out of the hamster wheel and make their dreams come true? We are held in place by global politics and economics and supression by others people's thinking and ruling. I wish you the very best in life.
Excelente video y saludos desde Lima Perú
En rigtig god historisk fortælling, både billedeligt og narration. Kort og præcist 🙂
What's the piano piece called in the 49:04
Very well made
Tak har lært så meget
Så godt fortalt, men stakkels alle dem der faldt i krigen 😓
Very informative and enjoyable documentary.
"enjoyable"?
I guess i know what you mean, but poor choice of words.
Great and very objective look at the events.
Very good vid- a poignant and succint explanation of Danish relations with southern neighbours.
Fun fact about wilhem dinesen. After the war he sailed to amerika and lived with the natives for a year and came back. He farthered karen blixen.
Thanks a lot for an excellent documentary from south of the border!
What rifle were the Danes using in this war? What Calibre ammunition?
There were a couple different ones, but the infantry had 16.9mm (.67) stem rifles (Tapriffel) or 17.8mm (.70) Minié rifles (Minieriffel). One of the commonly mentioned ones was the Tapriffel M/1848, but the infantry had atleast 6 different rifles. Based on pictures from the Danish War Musuem, it could look like some additional calibers might have been used by cavalry, artillery etc.
The 16.9mm stem rifles could obviously not use 17.8mm ammo, but the 17.8mm rifles could use 16.9mm ammo but with low precision because it wouldn't engage the rifling.
I found the following overview of the Danish infantry weapons in 1864 from a weapons analysis of the war made in 1946.
"1. The 16.9 mm M/1848 Tapriffel. This weapon had been brought in at the beginning of the Three Years' War and had won high favour during this war - which in and of itself was not so strange, since the stem system in 1848-50 was certainly the best muzzle loading rifle system.
2. The 16.9 mm M/1854 Suhler-Tapriffel, which had been taken from the Schleswig-Holstein rebel army and which in 1854-55 had been bored out to the same caliber as the M/1848 Tapriffel.
3. The 17.8 mm M/1828 Minieriffel. This weapon had started as the Danish smoothbore flintlock M/1828. By the 1840s it had been given a percussion lock and had been rifled from 1860.
4. The 17.8 mm Minieriffel of French model I. This weapon had started as the French smoothbore flintlock M/1822. From 1841 it had been given a percussion lock and in 1848 had been sold in large quantities to Denmark, where from 1849 it was mainly used in our excellent light battalions (1., 2., 10. and 12. Battalion). Rifled from 1861.
5. The 17.8 mm Minieriffel of French model II. This weapon had begun as the French smoothbore percussion M/1840, a model that had already been discarded in 1842 in favor of a better percussion rifle. Large quantities of the discarded French rifles M/1840 was sold abroad, such as to Italy and Denmark. The smoothbore M/1840 were rifled from 1861."
I'm not sure whether the listed model numbers only refer to Danish designations or also the foreign ones when they mention rifles bought from other countries. Some of it also gets a little confusing because "gevær" just means a long firearm in general, which can either be smoothbore or rifled, whereas "riffel" strictly means a rifle, in case it sounds like it mentions smoothbore rifles... Today the military doesn't use "riffel" anymore but only "gevær", but I think the distinction was used historically when rifles were a relatively new weapon.
Sentiments of domestic nostalgia and familial bliss are best kept separate from the grave business of war: the soldier must be utterly dedicated to his work and revel in war, else all is lost - including freedom.
I do not agree. You go to war because you are forced or you think you can make a difference paying the cost of war with your life. You are mere a tool to wage war as a soldier. Do not think that they even know your name the ones sending you to war because of their beliefs and ego.
Are they using fuggin' mount and blade models?
40:17 in the tv serie "1864", we can the the Prussian soldier wearing bags in their hands during the assault : what was the purpose ?
I saw the same in a Japanese war movie during the assault on Port Arthur in 1904.
I believe they are sandbags used for cover.
hey i like the way in what they showed the war
Commiserations to Denmark for being logistically closer to Germany than we are here in the UK.
The danes might have lost, but at least they lasted longer than france in ww2
That's not true. Denmark only lasted for a couple of hours against nazi Germany.
@@Niwles She speaks about the war of 1864. Anf yes, you are rigth.
What a strange comparison - WWII was a total war, introducing new technologies, and France was geographically in a worse position than Denmark.
It's kinda crazy to think about the fact that they lasted many months in 1864 but surrendered the entire nation of denmark in only 6 hours in 1940.
How long did Denmark last in WW2 ?
i have no idea what there saying yet i can understand every word they say
Not sure how I found this it just kinda popped up. But it was a great watch!
@percapita1239 fair point
My Maternal Grandmothers ancestors Immigrated, from northern Holstein to Davenport, Iowa, around this time, now I know, why. THANKS
BTW, have blonde hair and blue eyes, what are, the odds?
Movie link
It also belongs to the history that Denmark was a very young democracy at that time, only 9 years old. Therefore politicians might not have proper understanding of diplomacy, and especially throwing Denmark into a war, we wasn’t prepared for.
Interesting doc, and well done Danes!
At least, after this the Germans stayed in their own lands and never bothered any countries after this...right?
Right?
Blödsinn! In erster Linie waren das Preußen und Österreicher und nicht "Deutsche"! Zweitens haben diese beiden Nationen keinen belästigt! Die Dänen haben gegen das Londoner Protokoll verstoßen und daraus resultierte dieser Krieg, Punkt! Stellt Euch bitte nicht als Opfer dar.
Imagine losing all your seven sons to the service of the army.. It must have been earthshattering for that poor woman.
I am a native born German.1964. And there has never been any misunderstandings with our Danish friends and neighbors. But this war was part together with the German/Austrian and German/French wars to unite Germany. Pure politics. By the way, the „German Reich“ was pronounced in Versailles…
Yet you suffer from stigmata of the world wars. Ich wünsche dich das beste im Leben. Frohe Weinachten.
Lie. 1848, 1864 and 1940!
What were Americans doing in 1864? Fighting our Civil War in are 3rd year and the war will not end till April 1865.
Tom Buk-Swienty er en enestaaende forfatter og fortæller.
Spoopy
Das lustigste finde ich immer noch, dass euer Christian IX noch Mitglied von Deutschland worden wollte, weil trotzem Holstein. Das hätte was gegeben.
Niemand in der Bevölkerung konnte ihn leiden. Und auch heute sind wir nicht sehr stolz auf unseren "Verräter" König
44:22 should the Sub not say "Schau said, that the decisive battle is well underway" instead of "Schau sees, that the decisive battle is well underway"?
Nej
God dokumentar
Har lige læst Slagtebænk Dybbøl og skal i gang med den om Als.
For sure the Viet Minh in the Vietnam war against the French at Dien Bien Phu learned a lesson from the the Prussians at this battle about the value of progressive sap trenches towards the enemy.
Gud bevare Danmark
War is always shit. Period!
still, slesvig holsten er dansk...
Lasted longer than WW2 at least
It seems Germans had conflicts with everyone for their borders. Danish, Polish, French, Czech...
"The Germans" didn't have borders at the time since there was no "Germany" and in this case, the Danish thought they could annex land they were merely administrating as per an agreement after a previous war. The fact that unlike the first time around, they failed to get international support this time, shows how bone-headed the move was.
In this particular case the danish were causing the conflict
@@ohauss sorry to say, but Denmark was not just administering Schleswig as part of the London agreement, Holstein yes, Schleswig no. Also, we did not have a choice about administering Holstein, as the London agreement was a deal between great powers to keep the balance in the baltic sea. We would like to get rid of Holstein.
Schleswig has a long history with the kingdom of Denmark. The fact that Danevirke is in Schleswig showing that Danes have been in the areas from the age of Vikings. Also, many Danish kings have been Duke of Schleswig before getting the danish throne.
Historically it's common for people to have conflicts with everyone they have a border with, just human nature and how border tend to be established
Well, in these Times, they didn't start the war. first, the Danish started it, then the Austrian, and then the French, and they win all that. In the end Denmark lost the super power title, the Austrian lost territories, and the French empire dies
Danmark til Ejderen 🇩🇰🦁💙💛
Sydslesvig frit og genforenet med vores danske, skandinaviske brødre!
South Schleswig is German and will remain German... and you know it too ⚫⚪🔴 😅
Det ville ikke gøre nogen danskeres liv bedre, at vi havde Sydslesvig. Desuden ville Fleggaard være længere væk😂
@@Fkp.777it could easily have been though, had the WW2 allies not decided that each area should vote what country they wanted to be part of. They could have just given Denmark all of Sydslesvig (not that it would have been a good idea).
@@davidrudpedersen5622 Det var så en løgn. Håbet lever om et Danmark til Ejderen🇩🇰
this sounds like swedish mixed with german
As a german in Sweden, i heard today about my Swedish: "could be German or Danish".
Im. From denmak
I thought this was a movie...
In ancient times they use to torture prisoners. I use to think nothing could ever justify treating prisoners that way.
Then google started censoring my comments. Now I understand.
Lol
The danish did great love how they stod up to two Big countrys even tho they had more soldiers and better guns they was only 38.000 and they was 60.000 two big nation aganst one little not suprise they didint win the second war they had with Them.
They all made it to the "HALLS OF VALHALLA" WHERE THERE ANCESTORS WHERE WAITING WITH WINE.👍😎
@@trevorclausen2994 yes they are!👌🍻
@@trevorclausen2994 no we danes are christians we follow the one true god Jesus Christ not false pagan ones we abandoned that long time ago and we don't like it when foreigners say this for our dead loved ones.
@@cpt7752 awesome.✌😎
Sorry,but My great Grandfather's parents fled from the Schleswig/Holstein war 1864 to New Zealand,we are Danish Decent,and maybe a majority of Danes are Christian, not every Dane follows your belief,you still have white supremacy like every where else.
Denesh cowrd
For what it's worth, the Europeans refused to learn any lessons from the American Civil War, despite having had a great many military observers there. The deadliness of rifles, digging in deep to avoid shellfire. They always looked at the American experience as something exotic, as if the whole thing was an anomaly; from which not much could be learned, let alone affect battle doctrine. It was a strange sort of arrogance for which many paid for with their lives.
So what is your point? You do know that the founders of America came from Europe, right? America is a young nation. Much to learn yet. But yet America has grown to be the watchdog of the world. Trying to solve conflicts around the world while it may backfire at times. Global politics. Weapons are of great importance to America. The weapons industry dictates the agenda of the number of arms in the US, not the people running office, senate or house representatives. It is not up to the legal system to make America safe. Does freedom come from being able to bear arms and which advanced arms the military, air force or marine has? Do you know the expression the power of balance? I am not an extremist or patriot. Yet there are always nations trying to dictate or influence other nations. Nowadays it becomes increasingly harder to hide the truth due to mobile phones and drones. In war there are no winners. Only broken families and tragedies. It does not matter who has the better weaponry or tactics.
That comment is...weird, to say the least, because generals like Moltke and others observed the American Civil War closely, which was one of the reasons why he supported the establishment of a national railway network. Sadly, the US has largely abandoned theirs.
@@_jpg Yes. My comment might be weird if you only think logically and do not excape the box you are put in from what you learn in school, what you see in the media, what others tell you. War has never led to anything good. But it still amazes me, how we perceive the world as a whole. We are of the same race. Yet we wage war and follow people in power. Look beyond the influence of people of high status forcing their agenda on to billions of people on earth. Another weird comment from me along with the following. I have blood on my hands, I passively support war by paying taxes. I do not hold any arms at the frontlines. Yet I kill. Thoughts on this _jpg?
@@jaric5119
I think he made his point. Europe sent many observers to the American Civil War,yet failed to grasp that the event was the greatest seismic
shift in military operations of the 19th century. It was the first time that the key inventions of industrial revolution. The telegraph,rail roads,
factories,were mated with mass citizen armies.
What a conclusion? The France-Austria war of 1859 was divisive and short. The Prussian-Danish war of 1864 was divisive and short. The Prussian-France war of 1870 was divisive, with a slightly longer moping up face. One reason the American civil war took so long, was the large area of conflict combine with relatively small infrastructure.
What made WW1 so devastating was that the governments could mobilize the entire nation-state's resources for the war effort, hence not run out of manpower and rescuers for several years, despite intensive battles.
Well.... a German from Schleswig-Holstein here: The Danish King HAD to choose between the devil and the deep blue sea:
Danish nationalists demanded to annex both parts.... but he knew that this annexation would cause war against Prussia due to a breach of the London Protocol of 1852. He thought the other powers like the UK would step in again BUT he forgot this decision would be counted as an offensive act.
If he had not done anything those same Danish nationalists would have removed the king and a civil war could have been the result.
Denmark had been solely responsible for the Danish-German War of 1864.
A lesson to be learnt if you are a fan of nationalism. The Danish had to learn it the hard way.
PS: Today there are quite a few Danish people living here belonging to the Danish minority... and they proudly show their flag, the Dannebrog.
On the other side in Danish Northern-Schleswig there are quite a few Germans belonging to the German minority BUT they mustn't show the Schleswig-Holstein flag NOR the German flag and will be prosecuted if they do so!
Dear Danish nationalists of today.... I know you are there and you are strong in Denmark! This might be an idea for some change!
Should we prosecute the Danish minority for raising up the Danish flag in Germany like you do with the Germans in Denmark? Can you give us any advice how to bully a minority more efficiently?
That's a one-sided way of looking at events... Bismarck had a clear advantage in firing up nationalism in the German states after the constitutional crisis of 1862. Denmark and Slesvig was just a pawn in the big game of unifying Germany - with or without Austria. Pretty simplified to claim Preussia simply punished Danish nationalism. I agree with the description of the Danish Kings dilemma though.
As for the part with not being allowed to fly the German flag in Denmark without permission from the police. The law dates back from 1854 where common Danes was permitted to use the Danish flag - before that it was only the king. Only the Danish flag was permitted. It's not a special law passed to annoy Germans after the unification with North Slesvig in 1920 😉
@@HenrikHurup Thank you for your answer! Of course Denmark was just a pawn but that pawn moved too far ahead and committed suicide. 😉😂
@@knutritter461 I doubt the pawn had any other option 😉
I am unsure whether the German and Danish narratives are different, but in the Danish narrative, the Danish Nationalists did not want to encorporate both duchies into the Kingdom of Denmark. The Danish narrative is basically, that the German Nationalists wanted to unite Schleswig and Holstein and have them become part of the German Confederation. Remember that Holstein and Lauenburg were already part of the German Confederation. The Danish Nationalists wanted to split the duchies and make Schleswig part of the Kingdom of Denmark, some even wanting to split Schleswig close to the modern border, and cut ties with Holstein, since they feared Holstein would use its German influence to encorporated Schleswig, and potentially the Kingdom of Denmark, into the German Confederation.
I would also argue, that Denmark did not annex the duchies. Parts of the Danish Army were already garrisoned in the duchies, since the Danish king was also the duke of them. When the German Confederation interveened in Holstein and Lauenburg, the Danish troops were withdrawn to Schleswig. Austria and Prussia sought a war, as described in Bismarck's memoirs, to show the power of their armies, when they moved into Schleswig. They were not supported by the rest of the German Confederation who considered the war illegal, and German Confederation troops in Holstein were even prepared to fight back the Austro-Prussian troops, but were told to stand down by the confederal government. Also note that Schleswig-Holstein was later annexed by Prussia and not simply liberated. The Prussians promised a plebiscite about the border in Schleswig, but never actually held one. When Denmark was offered back Schleswig following the First World War, the Danes held the plebiscite that determined the modern border. In the meantime, many Danes had left their old family farms due to Prussian oppression, and the Prussian state encouraged Germans to move to Schleswig, which pushed the border north.
You suggest that the war was caused by Danish Nationalism, but why did Prussia and Austria interveen if not for German Nationalism? The whole wish to unite Schleswig and Holstein and make them part of the German Confederation was in itself caused by German Nationalism. While Holstein was a more contested territory, Schleswig had been Danish for a thousand years, but had seen increased immigration and influence by Germans. This would indicate that the Danes were not suppressing German culture, until after their rebellion in the First Schleswig War. Likewise, the Germans suppressed Danish culture when they came in charge.
In regards to the later Danish attitude towards Germans, also consider that a third of the Danish territory was lost, as well as Danes being forced into German service in the later wars, and Denmark being occupied by Germany. On the other hand, the Germans got everything they wanted, so why would they be bitter?
@@danishdefencedocumentaries3996
Regardless of this being a prime opportunity for Prussia, it was the Danish who broke the London Protocol, which is also illustrated by the UK refusing to intervene this time around. That Bismarck happily said "Thank you" is true, but it was the Danish who provided him the opportunity for war on a silver plate.
Why didn't the Danes claim their territories after Germany surrendered in World War II?
Because they were not “their” territories. It was - as explained in the beginning - mainly Germans living there. Claiming them would have meant more trouble in the foreseeable future. Rather have lasting peace than a piece of land to fight about.
@@nielstenbrink Stockholm was also "German", but the Swedes gave it back.
Because our government refused to. But I'm wondering if we actually have such thing like a "reclaim" chance. I mean it would be great if our ancient danish cities of Flensborg, Egernførde or Rendsborg would come home🇩🇰
@@danishcommander4dk are you kidding? Ancient Danish? Really?
Japanese imperialism continues to colonize the Ryukyu Republic in 1972 is equivalent to returning East Prussia to Germany
The hell are you trying to say
WTF?
?
Rasmus 🫡
Ernst Schau sound German
It's very possible. I was only able to trace the ancestry of the Schau brothers to their father, Hans Schau, who was born in Denmark. Several of the mentioned officers came from immigrant families. General Christian de Meza's grand father was a Sephardic Jew who had emmigrated from Portugal. General Georg Gerlach's father was born in Marburg, Major Glode du Plat's father was born in Bremen, and Captain Carl Galster's father was born in Erlangen.
@@danishdefencedocumentaries3996 Schau might have been from Schlewig-Holstein
That was a very common practice back then in the 1800's, when last names became mandatory for all citiziens in Denmark, was to take a german sounding last name, as it was seen as "higher" class. It didn't require german heritage to take a last name like Schau, Wass, Schmidt etc. Many peasants saw it as a way to climb the social ladder. The vast majority of pure bred danish heritage.
@@Matstarx25 I never knew that
Surnames in Danish history is a "funny" mess.
Why do they speak like that?
Prussia is no more: ethnically cleansed of Germans; Denmark still stands...
you know thats not true right
@@Legio1Italica How so?
@@megetmorsomt Because the Prussians mixed with the Germans. Should you know.
@@Legio1ItalicaSpoilers: The land area belonging to the kingdom of Prussia now mostly consists of apopulation with Poles, with a minority of people consisting of German, Lithuanian, Estonian and Latvian background.
1864. The South secedes, gets help from other nations, and the North loses. My Confederate ancestors weep.
my Union ancestors do the fortnite dance.
Piss off, seppo. Nobody cares about your shithole country.
@@bnipmnaa Some people on the internet develop bravery they don't have in real life, but their penis isn't any longer.
Shut up American, this isn't about you.
@@nickymatthews2465 ok woman
börk
🇩🇰🫡 🇩🇪🫵💪🇩🇰👍
Prussian win the the battle of dybøl and they killed ernst and emil schau
Prussians needed Germans
Keiner hilft euch. Keiner.
More died in a single small relatively unknown US Civil War battles than all the casualty in this war between two countries. I always wonder how the US would fare against the Europeans if there was a war back then. With General Lee and General Grant leading the battle, it would have been very interesting. There was a lot more strategy and use of climate and terrain to win battles in the US Civil War. Even though the Prussians won convincingly against the small Danish forces, I bet the combined US army would wipe out the entire Prussian empire.
It was pure stupidity to fortify an area that is constantly bombarded and you can't attack back. They should have pulled back or change the plans. Lee's motto was to move, hit and run. You only stay entrenched if you have a superior defense and natural terrain that prevents the enemy from bombarding you without taking casualties back. Lee would have forced the enemy to move further north to stretch their supplies lines and find a vulnerability to flank them. Even if the Prussians had superior guns, the terrain and weather gave them an advantage. The Russians also used the cold winter weather to hold the Germans back in WWII. Weather is critical in any battle strategy. However, those cannons would be harder to move quickly and that limits their usability. Grant was a bully and knew how to use psychological warfare and superior strength. Together, they would have been a vicious duo.
The Overland Campaign was a classic series of battle that used strategy. Even a strategic retreat is part of the entire battle plan if you are outnumbered and outgunned. Move the field of battle to a new location where you have an advantage. They were literally playing a chess match in those battles. The Vicksburg campaign was really the key to winning against Lee during the Civil War. It cut out the supplies to the Confederates from Texas and slowly eroded their supply lines. Without supply lines for food, recruits and so on, its only a matter of time the enemy gets weakened. The battle of Vicksburg also cut out the Confederate's ability to use the railroad system to transport the goods and it slowed down their ability to fight. Even though the battle of Gettysburg was important, the Vicksburg victory had a greater affect on the entire battle.
I think the Danish could have held off the Prussians longer if they had better leaders with more experience with battle strategies. There was a lot to learn from the US Civil War battles that could have turned the tides of this war. If the Danish had better intelligence on the movement of the enemy, they could have fought back more successfully. They got into the normal routine and didn't realize that the Prussians were ready to attack. If they set up intelligence lines along the way, they could have early warning of 10,000 troops being moved. You can't move that many people without being detected if you had intelligence sources.
Shut up American, this isn't about you.
There was a reason why Dybbøl was chosen, it was a keypoint in north schleswig, it held the entrance to Jutland peninsula and the sea lanes to funen and the flensborg fjord. The Germans could not advance through the marches of Tønder and southern jutland. The Danes had very good battlefield commanders, but sadly the General staff was replaced constantly and was not stabil and strong. On top of that the germans used bolt action riffels, Denmark had none, the Germans also had very good haubitzers. The Danish soldiers held nonetheless untill the Austrians arrived., The English forsoke the Danes and never helped. The Danish Navy crushed the germans. It was a great lose that is still apart of Danish national psyche today.
@@ulrichkristensen4087 Although Dybbol was a strategic key point, the fact that the soldiers were exposed to fire and yet unable to retaliate means their tactics were flawed. You don't sit there and just let the other side bombard you without moving or find another way to defend yourself. In the case of the Pacific war, the Japanese were surrounded in the islands, and yet they were able to dig tunnels. They were constantly bombarded until every blade of grass was gone, but they were protected by the tunnels. When the Americans attacked, they came out of the caves and fought hard. In the battle of Iwo Jima, the general Kuribasyashi realized the beach was full of black sand. As soon as you dig a defense in the sand, it would collapse. Instead of forcing the soldiers to continue digging, he changed his tactic to build defenses higher. Now the black sands became a death trap for the Americans who landed on the beach. They were not able to move forward quickly in the sand and was hit with cross fire. The basically ripped the American landing forces apart as soon as they hit the beaches. That is one stone cold hearted person. Basically, they adapted to the situation instead of blindly going forward with a failing strategy.
In other words, you adjust your tactic to the situation. You either move, find a way to defend yourself or figure out a way to make a counter attack. When the enemy is fast, you adjust to it. If the enemy is slow, you take advantage of it. I'm sure it would not be easy to move the canons, but if the soldiers were allowed to probe the enemy's perimeter defenses, they would have a much better chance of winning. They had no idea a large force of enemy was even at their doors on the day of the battle. The absolute lack of information is not excusable. The Danes know the landscape better and there are lots of places where they can set up recon. Instead, the leaders allowed the solders to stay in place and get shelled until their moral is low. You will never win any battle that way. Its obvious the leadership was inexperienced with true war and their lack of experience resulted in many unnecessary deaths and defeat.
America lost in Vietnam not because the NVA had superior weapons. We lost because they were able to adapt. They disappear into the jungles. They dig tunnels and pop out behind their lines and wreck havoc. The NVA can't afford modern weapons, so they make bamboo punji sticks with feces on it to cause damage and infection. Their bridges get blown up by airplanes, so they build bridges under water. Basically you fight a war where you do whatever it takes to win. There are no gentleman's rules where you stand up and let your solders get destroyed wave after wave. Even in the Civil war, there was a big use of natural and defensive wood structures to fight behind.
The battle of Dybbol was in 1864 and the US Civil war was from 1861-1865. Both these battles occurred in the same time. There was ample battles and strategies used in the civil war that anyone who is a military strategist would be able to learn from. However, its completely obvious the leaders in the Dybbol battle had not studied them. As a result, they lost and lost badly. Dybbol represents tragedy to the Danes, but it provides an invaluable lesson on war strategies. Every time you see that statue the Prussians erected for the battle, its a reminder what failure in leadship results in.
Its a classic history lesson on adapting during battle and to do whatever it takes regardless of the enemy's superior strength. There are many principles in war which resulted in victory even when under overwhelming firepower from the enemy. One of the most powerful concept is the concentration of power. Divide your enemy up and when you attack, in any battle, you have a superior concentration of number. You don't eat an elephant with one bite. You take small bites until the whole elephant is gone. The concentration of force concept was used by Napoleon and the Confederates to decimate the enemies.
Even Americans still make the same damn stupid mistakes in the modern time due to bad leadership. They should have never established Outpost COP Keating in Afghanistan. Basically, its a similar situation as Dybbol. The solders were hunkered down in this outpost that was exposed on all side and the Afghan rebels can shoot at them from the tall mountains all around the outpost. It was not defendable and they took on a lot of fire. Eventually, the output was runned over by the enemy. Its another example of what happens when people don't learn mistakes from the past. A true test is if a General does not feel safe being in the camp, they shouldn't force soldiers to do it. A lot of times, its policies from the top while the general is safe 1000 miles away in a warm and safe military base. That is how you lose wars.
I think you`re overrating americans generals and "tactics" used in the ACW.
Let me remind you of the glorious moments such as Malvern Hill, Pickett`s charge, Cold Harbour, the Crater etc. Sure the dansih could have learned a lot from them.
And Lee in Europe? Please, that old man didn`t win a single victory outside his own backyard.
Also at this point in history the prussian army has far superior weapons than the americans. They use early types of bolt-action rilfes and their cannons outrange the americans by far. The american army is much more equipped like the danish.
The Casualty rate (by numbers alone) doesn`t dictate how good strategy and tactics are used, if so the napoleonic wars outclass the ACW many times.
Your arguments are such overrated. If the american generals were so superior, they would have leared from their own mistakes, but it took them around 4 years to figure out that classic napoleonic warfare was outdated.
I am not saying Lee wasn`t a good general, but he is probably one of the most overrated of all times. Just look at the facts I mentioned. In mind mind a great general doesn`t make the same mistake twice. Lee should have learned from Malvern Hill.
Grant on the other hand is more tricky to rate. He used his superior numbers and weapons, and yes he won some great strategical victories as well, but put up against even odds (or someone with better weaponry such as the prussians) I think he would have had a difficult time keeping his memory as a mastermind general.
@@Thebluefox815 I think you underrate the American Generals during some of those battles. Its an absolute joke that you said that Lee "didn't win a single victory outside his backyard". He beat the union army back in Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. In the Second Battle of Bull Run (Manassas), he decisively beat the Union force. Manassas was only 30 miles from Washington DC. In the Battle of Antietam, Longstreet under the command of Lee was able to defeat an army twice its size. He fought countless battles with a far weaker force and was able to push the Union army around. What really made it worse for him was the loss in the battle of Vicksburg. That battle basically cut off the supplies from Texas to keep the army fed. Over time, the loss of that supply line was what weakened the Confederate's ability to win a long battle of attrition.
Lee was a great general, but he was human. If he didn't make several tactical mistakes in the Battle of Gettysburg, he would have won that battle in the second day. The union army would have retreated. On the first day, he was attacking Gettysburg from the north and west and was able to overtake the city. On the second day, he could have overtaken Cemetery Hill and Culp's Hill. In fact, they almost overran the Union army's supply lines near the Baltimore Pike. If they have overtaken those supply lines, the Union army would have to retreat. Unfortunately, that lead to the battle of Round Top and Little round top which stopped their progress. The last mistake was to try to take Cemetery Ridge by pushing through the Seminary Ridge. Had he paused and re-think the strategy, he may have a chance to win. However, he was human and made a critical mistake in the attack on open fields and that resulted in the loss in the Battle of Gettysburg.
Grant is a different animal. He pushed on regardless of losses and that was one of the advantages he had over his predecessors. The previous union army generals became timid and was more likely to overestimate the Confederate forces. They were afraid of Lincoln and losing battles. Grant had balls of steel, but he is nowhere as good as Lee in terms of using tactics. He was a bulldog and pounded his way through some of the battles. Grant also made many mistakes, but he had the advantage where he can get more forces and play a long game of attrition with a larger and well supplied force. Lee had a disadvantage in many of the battles. However, he was good at using speed and coverage to his advantage. He also used rails to transport troops which was something not done early in the war. The most interesting battles were along the Overland Campaign which lead to several battles such as the battle of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania Court House. That series of battles was one of the greatest use of tactics which even included the crossing of the James River using pontoon boats.
The Prussian Army may have more superior weapons, but they did not have a decisive advantage. Prussians had the Dryse Needle guns. They had an advantage of a bolt action and faster reloading. However, Americans had the Henry M1860 repeating rifles. Although there were less of them as compared to the Dryse guns, the Henry repeating rifles were far superior in terms of the firepower. It had a .44 rimfire cartridge and was better designed. The Dryse needle guns had a tendency to misfire when the needle is dirty and a new needle was required after every 12 shots. The Chassepot was a better weapon that was used in later battles after Dybol. In my opinion, the Prussians had a technological advantage, but it was not such a great advantage that it would result in a victory in every battle during that time. The strategy and tactics used is a lot more critical than just the weapons available.
Again, we will never know what would have happened if the Americans were part of the fighting in Dybol. However, they had an advantage in being through multiple battles. The strategies and thinking involved in a battle is a lot more important than superior weapons. If you had group of well trained soldiers with good leadership, you can win a lot of battles and skirmishes. On the other hand, in the Danish side, you had demoralized soldiers and bad leadership. Its a combination that would lose many battles.
Where is the Prussian perspective or the perspective of the german states? of the german federation?? Is this a fair reconstruction of history? I don't believe it!
Looks like the whole story is tilting towards the Daens
Its a danish channel, telling danish history, from a danish perspective. I dont see a problem here.
The War was nothing but a footnote in German history. Also it's a Danish documentary, of course it will focus on the Danish side.
Iike Defferleffer said this is a footnote in German history, but for Danish history and Denmark as a whole, this war change Denmark on so many fronts, ever have an influence on nations geography
Well, even in a documentary, you could give two sides. Still, the war was more than a footnote even for Prussia/Germany, but certainly overshadowed by the two world wars. It was the first major "modern" war fought by Prussia and Austria at the time. France, GBritain and Russia had fought one on the Cirmea. I don't know why the Danish comment is so whiny about Denmark becoming a 'small nation'. Sure, they lost the rang they had in the middle ages and after, but they did recuperate some of the territory. As for Prussia and Bismarck, unfortunately, it showed they'd grab just a but more than they should have (as with Elsass-Lothringen after the Franco-Prussian war). I'm not sure Bismarck wanted the war so much, it was still a gamble. However, once the conditions were there, he made sure Prussia would win resoundingly.
As for the comparison with the ACW - US generals would probably have messed up and lost far more troops. Only later, the US would start to let others do the dirty work and minimize casualties.
I will never root for Danmark kalmar union never forget never forgive.
What?? I'm sure you cant even name any of your family members from that time, the Kalmar union was a great thing for scandinavia
Wdym what did the Kalmar union do to you
Lol you're probably Swedish
@@ulrichkristensen4087 Erik Eriksson is one.
@@mattep74 the german psycologist?